My current PC has an AMD Athalon 3200+. I'm getting a new notebook and
while it's not going to be a gaming system, I'd like it to be at least
as powerful as my old PC if not moreso.

So I'm wondering if the Intel Duo T2300 is going to be as good, or if I
should spend the extra hundred or two for the T2400 or T2500, or if
it's fundamentally so less powerful that might as well go for the
cheaper T2300 and not worry about better performance.

Here's the stats that I've been able to find on it.

Athalon XP 3200+ (Barton)
2.17 GHz
400 MHz bus speed
512 KB L2 cache
Single core

Intel Duo Core T2300 (Centrino)
1.66 GHz
677 MHz bus speed
2 MB L2 cache
Dual core

While the clock speed is much less on the Intel, that bus and L2 makes
it seem like that would compensate pretty well for that difference.
I realize that the dual core just makes multitasking better, doesn't
actually increase the performance of any one application it's
processing.

Would I notice any performance difference between the two? Would
spending another hundred or two for the 1.83 or 2.0 GHz Intel version
make a significant difference?
(For example, running F.E.A.R. or Oblivion or Half-Life 2 *grin*) Or
should I just save the money and be happy with it smoking the Office
applications and playing DVDs?

Thanks for any feedback!

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "Liam"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> My current PC has an AMD Athalon 3200+. I'm getting a new notebook and
> while it's not going to be a gaming system, I'd like it to be at least
> as powerful as my old PC if not moreso.
>
> So I'm wondering if the Intel Duo T2300 is going to be as good, or if I
> should spend the extra hundred or two for the T2400 or T2500, or if
> it's fundamentally so less powerful that might as well go for the
> cheaper T2300 and not worry about better performance.
>
> Here's the stats that I've been able to find on it.
>
> Athalon XP 3200+ (Barton)
> 2.17 GHz
> 400 MHz bus speed
> 512 KB L2 cache
> Single core
>
> Intel Duo Core T2300 (Centrino)
> 1.66 GHz
> 677 MHz bus speed
> 2 MB L2 cache
> Dual core
>
> While the clock speed is much less on the Intel, that bus and L2 makes
> it seem like that would compensate pretty well for that difference.
> I realize that the dual core just makes multitasking better, doesn't
> actually increase the performance of any one application it's
> processing.
>
> Would I notice any performance difference between the two? Would
> spending another hundred or two for the 1.83 or 2.0 GHz Intel version
> make a significant difference?
> (For example, running F.E.A.R. or Oblivion or Half-Life 2 *grin*) Or
> should I just save the money and be happy with it smoking the Office
> applications and playing DVDs?
>
> Thanks for any feedback!

The T2300 is Yonah.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819111180

Yonah at 2GHz, performs the same as Athlon64 X2 3800+. Your
choice of 1.66Ghz would be 83% of that, or 3154+.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2627&p=4

I would think in average situations (apps that cannot use both
cores simultaneously) you would be disappointed.

In this thread, they use a conversion factor of 1.6 for the
clock rate. Taking 1.66 * 1.6 = 2.656GHz equiv P4 per core.
As long as the software you use, always uses both cores, it
is a win. Otherwise stay with your 3200+.

http://www.notebookforums.com/post644481.html

The T2500 is 2GHz, and using the conversion factor of 1.6,
that is 3.2GHz equiv P4 per core. So at least when using apps
that don't use both cores, you'd be at roughly the same
performance level as your 3200+. So at least in terms of
benchmarking contests, the T2500 would make you feel better.
And when conditions permit (Photoshop), the T2500 would give
you some improvement.

But if you are just doing email, typing notes, and web surfing,
all these platforms would feel the same. The only time the GHz
race matters, is when doing ops with long execution times, when
you finish a DVDshrink faster, or when doing benchmarks with
your friends.

HTH,
Paul

On 29 Jul 2006 09:52:14 -0700, "Liam" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>My current PC has an AMD Athalon 3200+. I'm getting a new notebook and
>while it's not going to be a gaming system, I'd like it to be at least
>as powerful as my old PC if not moreso.
>

Do you have a specific reason to want this?
In general, higher speed (performance) in a given family
uses more power, more heat production (turns on fan, again
more power), and drains battery faster.

If you have another demanding use, it makes sense. If
arbitrarily declaring you want it faster, it doesn't make
much sense because the HDD will be the largest bottleneck
for most uses, if not the keyboard and touchpad use (user
using them).


>So I'm wondering if the Intel Duo T2300 is going to be as good, or if I
>should spend the extra hundred or two for the T2400 or T2500, or if
>it's fundamentally so less powerful that might as well go for the
>cheaper T2300 and not worry about better performance.

Spend the $ on a fast (high RPM) hard drive before the CPU.
Spend it on at least 1GB of memory too. Unless you have a
compute-intensive main use for the system, spending more for
the CPU could have quite diminishing return.


>
>Here's the stats that I've been able to find on it.
>
>Athalon XP 3200+ (Barton)
>2.17 GHz
>400 MHz bus speed
>512 KB L2 cache
>Single core
>
>Intel Duo Core T2300 (Centrino)
>1.66 GHz
>677 MHz bus speed
>2 MB L2 cache
>Dual core
>
>While the clock speed is much less on the Intel, that bus and L2 makes
>it seem like that would compensate pretty well for that difference.
>I realize that the dual core just makes multitasking better, doesn't
>actually increase the performance of any one application it's
>processing.
>
>Would I notice any performance difference between the two?

yes, for select tasksthe Core Duo will be faster. Usage in
general will make the desktop system feel MUCH faster
(assuming it has a fairly modern, roughly same age HDD in
it).


>Would
>spending another hundred or two for the 1.83 or 2.0 GHz Intel version
>make a significant difference?

Doing what?
General use, no.

>(For example, running F.E.A.R. or Oblivion or Half-Life 2 *grin*)

You already wrote that it's not going to be a gaming system.
Please don't tell us you're wasting our time by pretending
it won't be doing the most demanding thing a notebook can
do- gaming, when that is exactly what you want to spec it
out for. Anyway, if gaming is even the tiniest bit
important, make sure it has separate video card (at least
GPU/memory if on mainboard), though whether the CPU matters
much will partly be a function of the screen resolution and
whether you have all eyecandy turned on. IE- how much the
video is the bottleneck.

> Or
>should I just save the money and be happy with it smoking the Office
>applications and playing DVDs?
>

We cant' answer this for you... kinda why there's more than
one laptop and configuration available, one size does not
fit all even when most people are not gamers (contrary to
what many online kiddie review sites would suggest).

kony wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2006 09:52:14 -0700, "Liam" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >My current PC has an AMD Athalon 3200+. I'm getting a new notebook and
> >while it's not going to be a gaming system, I'd like it to be at least
> >as powerful as my old PC if not moreso.
[.. snip ..]
> Spend the $ on a fast (high RPM) hard drive before the CPU.
> Spend it on at least 1GB of memory too. Unless you have a
> compute-intensive main use for the system, spending more for
> the CPU could have quite diminishing return.
>
[..snip..]

Great advice! Sounds like I'm going for money saving options, although
the 7200 HD I'll go ahead and spring for.
Thanks for replying!
-Liam